Jos Verhulst & Arjen Nijeboer Direct Democracy Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and Referendum With a contribution by Paul Carline Jos Verhulst & Arjen Nijeboer Direct Democracy Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and Referendum Democracy International Brussels 2007 www.democracy-international.org www.democratie.nu www.referendumplatform.nl ISBN 9789078820031 Jos Verhulst & Arjen Nijeboer “Direct Democracy: Facts and Arguments about the Introduction of Initiative and Referendum” Translation: David Calderhead Correction: Paul Carline Layout: Stephan Arnold © The copyright of this publication is arranged by Creative Commons license “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5”. You are free to copy and distribute the work under the following conditions: • Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author. • Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No derivative works: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. More Information: www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ Acknowledgements We would like to express our grateful thanks to the following people and bod- ies for their contribution to the creation of this book. Heiko Dittmer (Antwerp) and Bert Penninckx (Pellenberg) for their support for this project. Michael Efler (Berlin), Matthias Leimeister (Berlin), Michael Macpherson (Berlin), and Frank Rehmet (Hamburg) for their assistance with the research. Gerald Häf- ner (Munich), Paul Carline (Edinburgh), and Michaël Bauwens (Antwerp), re- spectively, for their contribution of articles to the German, English and Dutch editions. Stephan Arnold (Halle) for his design. Bruno Kaufmann (Falun) for the opportunity he provided to present this book at a series of conferences for the Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe, of which he is director, in the four corners of Europe. A special word of thanks is due to Aimee Lind Adamiak (Ås), Blaž Babič (Ljubljana), Thomas Benedikter (Bolzano), David Calderhead (Amsterdam), Nicolas E. Fischer (Copenhagen), Amalie Foss (Copenhagen), Louise C. Larsen (Copenhagen), Mira Hettesova (London), Daniel Kmiecik (Lille), An- dreas Linke (Berlin), Juan Carlos Madronal (Madrid), Magdalena Musial-Karg (Poznan) and Lilia Zaharieva (Aachen) for their extensive translation work, and to Paul Carline (Edinburgh), María Jesus Garcia (Madrid), Ronald Pabst (Cologne) and Bartek Wisnewski (Warsaw) for their often extensive proofread- ing and corrections. Further thanks go to all the people and organisations in Europe who are contributing to the distribution of this publication. Finally, we would also like to express our heartfelt thanks to everyone whose donations made this publication possible. Antwerp and Amsterdam, May 2007 Jos Verhulst and Arjen Nijeboer Contents Acknowledgements. 5 1. The hidden power of democracy. 7 2. What is democracy?. 12 3. Federalism, subsidiarity and social capital. 22 4. The democratic person. 36 5. Lessons from direct democracy in practice. 47 6. Possible objections to direct democracy. .68 7. Direct democracy in the United Kingdom. 85 Bibliography. 90 About the authors . 95 About the publishers of this work . 96 1. The hidden power of democracy The twentieth century will not go down in history as the adapted to the conditions in society. People need each other century of information technology, space travel or nuclear to correct the imperfections in each other’s ideas. The heart power. It will not be remembered as the century of Fascism, of democracy is actually this process of the social shaping of Communism or Capitalism. Nor will it be the century of two perceptions, in which the idea or proposal of a single per- world wars. son, often already accepted by a smaller group (a political party, action group or pressure group), has its pros and cons The twentieth century will be the century of democracy. weighed up by society as a whole. This perception-forming process leads to a choice. But the choice always has to be During the twentieth century, for the first time in history, examined in an historical context; today’s minority can be democracy became a global standard. Make no mistake, the tomorrow’s majority. The actual decisions in relation to the standard has not been really achieved anywhere, and democ- stream of image forming are like the timpani beats within an racy is continually crushed everywhere in the world. How- entire symphony. ever, with a few notable exceptions such as Saudi Arabia and Bhutan, every kind of regime lays claim to its democratic le- In the medium to long term, democratic decisions will be gitimacy. And they do that because they know that democra- socially superior to dictatorial decisions. Morally dubious cy has become the standard for the world’s population. That goals, which do not serve the communal interest, will by is a revolutionary fact. their very nature seek their way via concealed channels that are shielded from the light of open, democratic deci- In the 19th century, democracy was actually still only in its sion-making. Under democratic conditions, the best ideas infancy. The universal single vote system appeared first in will be filtered out, so to speak, because we are better at the United States of America, but until the mid 19th century recognising others’ weaknesses than our own. The process that was generally restricted in most states to white men of selection that occurs along the path of democracy can who owned property. Women and people of colour were not feed into society that which is beneficial to it. This does considered competent to participate in the elections. Only in not mean that the presence of democratic instruments 1870, after the Civil War, were people of colour granted the necessarily guarantees the quality of the moral initiatives constitutional right to vote. American women had to wait un- of individual members of society. We can only trust that til 1920. In the UK, workers rioted and fought hard for many such initiatives will emerge. But it does mean that morally decades until late in the 19th century to achieve the right to worthy aspirations cannot materialise without democracy. vote. Suffragettes demonstrated bravely from 1904 to 1918, Politics can never prescribe morality. But politics can create before women over 30 and all men over 21 were given the democratic instruments that allow the moral potential that right to vote. It was 1928 before this was revised to include is dormant in individuals to be freed and put to work for the all women over 21, and even this was ridiculed as the ‘flapper benefit of society. vote’. In South Africa, too, disasters were predicted in the event that universal voting rights would be implemented! In hindsight, these objections to granting voting rights to work- Evolving democracy ers, women and people of colour seem hollow and pathetic. Democracy is never complete. The rise of democracy should There is a hidden power that lurks in democracy. In recent be seen as an organic process. Democracy cannot stop devel- history, democratic regimes repeatedly resisted apparently oping and deepening, just as a person cannot stop breathing. overpowering dictatorial systems. Time and time again, the A democratic system that remains static and unchanged will more democratic societies ultimately seemed to have the degenerate and become undemocratic. It is just such a proc- greater vitality. ess of ossification that causes society’s current malaise. We have to face up to the fact that democracy in our societies is in dire straights. Two sources of power Our current, purely representative democracy is in fact the Democracy derives its superiority from two sources. response to the aspirations of more than a century ago. This system was suited to that time, because the majority of peo- Firstly, a democratic regime is legitimate. In a real democracy, ple could find their political views and ideals reflected in a the form of the regime is, by definition, sought after by the small number of clear-cut human and social beliefs, which people. It is logical that such a regime can rely on more inter- were embodied in and represented by Christian, socialist or nal support than a dictator. liberal groups, for example. That time is long past. People’s ideas and judgements have become more individualised. Secondly, a democracy is more productive. In an authoritarian regime, the ideas of the majority of citizens have little oppor- The appropriate democratic form in this context is a parlia- tunity to influence decision-making. In a democracy, there is mentary system complemented with the binding citizens’ ini- a much broader base of ideas. tiative referendum (direct democracy), because such a system provides a direct link between individuals and the legisla- Moreover, the selection of ideas is more efficient in a democ- tive and executive organs. The greater the degree to which racy. Democracy is nothing more than the social processing citizens incline towards individual judgements, and political of individual ideas. New ideas always originate with individu- parties lose their monopoly as ideological rallying points, the als, because only individuals can think. But the individual higher will be the demand for tools of direct-democratic deci- ideas have to be considered, weighed against each other and sion-making. Indeed, a majority of people in Western countries want the with each other in a kind of federalism, the more easily and referendum to be introduced [see 1-1]. This fact alone should effectively can shared perceptions emerge (the link between be decisive in also actually implementing it. Democracy liter- federalism and direct democracy is discussed in more detail ally means: ‘government by the people’ (Oxford English Dic- in chapter 3). Direct democracy and federalism reinforce tionary). The first step towards authentic government by the each other.